Should pedophilia be considered a "sexual orientation"?

[Xzyzrzq]

For a little background, feel free to read this article: http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/1...al-orientation

The gist of the article is this. According to the new DSM, pedophilia is to be considered a sexual orientation in the Psychology community. This only includes pedophilia in its simplest form, the attraction towards individuals under the age of consent, for lack of better phrasing, without acting upon those urges, and is still to be differentiated from "pedophilic disorder", which is basically acting upon those urges or child molestation.

Being someone who has worked with children for many years, I have some strong feelings about this, but I'd prefer to let others have their say first and I will join in the debate later.

So basically, what I'm asking is, as the thread title says, should pedophilia be considered a sexual orientation in the same way that heterosexuality, homosexuality, asexuality, etc. are, and relatedly, is the change in the DSM right?

[Rainbow Dash]

I think Fetish would be a more accurate term to use to describe this than Sexual Orientation, as Orientation seems to refer more to gender preference than age. If this where to be classed as a Orientation, so would other acts of Paraphilic behavior, such as Zoophilia, and Sadism.

Fetish seems to comfortably hold anything to do with a person's sexual preference, besides that of gender.

Would People into Japanese 'Loli' Characters but are not sexual predators, still be classed as this new orientation?

[Cyrus]

This is a tricky situation. Personally, I fail to see how anyone could possibly be attracted to children, especially those who are very much under age. Because at it's core that is what a sexual orientation is, the group that you are physically attracted to. As such, I do not think that pedophilia should be classified as a sexual orientation.

With a classification of 'sexual orientation', it adds a sense of legitimacy to sexual attraction to children (even if you do not act on those urges). The issue behind pedophilia has, as far as I can tell, been the issue of informed consent. The question is then "how old do you need to be to give informed consent?" Personally I don't think that a blanket age is the ideal option, but I understand it's use. However, I do not believe that an underage child can be capable of giving informed consent with regards to sexual contact.

I am aware that the new ruling specifically states that it is purely the thoughts, rather than acting upon them. However, normalising these types of thoughts could potentially lead to cases of people then acting upon them. In short I find the idea worrying, as I am of the opinion that children are not capable of fully grasping the concepts and intricacies of sexual activity.

I think Fetish would be a more accurate term to use to describe this than Sexual Orientation, as Orientation seems to refer more to gender preference than age. If this where to be classed as a Orientation, so would other acts of Paraphilic behavior, such as Zoophilia, and Sadism.

Fetish seems to comfortably hold anything to do with a person's sexual preference, besides that of gender.

Would People into Japanese 'Loli' Characters but are not sexual predators, still be classed as this new orientation?

The problem with the "fetish" specification is that sexual fetishism is defined as "the sexual arousal a person receives from a physical object, or from a specific situation." which applies purely to sexual situations. If someone is attracted to children, perhaps in more than just a sexual way, then the 'Fetish' label is completely blown out of the water

[SlagartheCruel]

No.

Just. . .no.

[Rainbow Dash]

The problem with the "fetish" specification is that sexual fetishism is defined as "the sexual arousal a person receives from a physical object, or from a specific situation." which applies purely to sexual situations. If someone is attracted to children, perhaps in more than just a sexual way, then the 'Fetish' label is completely blown out of the water

Oohh, very true. But i still believe it's classification as an orientation still put a lot of other Paraphilic behavior into the same position, E.g. Zoophilia, or Mechnophilia.

[Cyrus]

Oohh, very true. But i still believe it's classification as an orientation still put a lot of other Paraphilic behavior into the same position, E.g. Zoophilia, or Mechnophilia.

It all depends on whether or not it's purely sexual arousal, and also the other sides ability to give consent. Technically a child can give some kind of consent, albeit not informed and probably very unreliable. However, an animal or a machine have no way to give anything other than implied consent. To then class them as an orientation, rather than a potentially one sided sexual inclination would be inappropriate.

[Rainbow Dash]

It all depends on whether or not it's purely sexual arousal, and also the other sides ability to give consent. Technically a child can give some kind of consent, albeit not informed and probably very unreliable. However, an animal or a machine have no way to give anything other than implied consent. To then class them as an orientation, rather than a potentially one sided sexual inclination would be inappropriate.

True, but sexual consent doesn't have to be there for the existence of an Orientation. For instance, people consider themselves homosexuals, but have no desire to engage in intercourse. The same can be considered here.

[Lyssea]

On the main topic of this I would say that it is a sexual orientation.
To me, though it may not be accurate according to the complete definition, I honestly don't know, a fetish more a thing which further arouse you rather then being a requirement. You can have a fetish for feet, but feets aren't -required- for enjoyment. Since, as far as I have understood it, Pedophiles tend to be only into kids. Might be wrong there though.
In this part I suppose I'd compare them a bit to gay/straight? I am willing to accept I might not be entirely up to date with definitions though.

As for if it is okay... that is a question in two parts to me.

Is it okay to fantasize about children or watch porn not made with the involvement of real children, such as hentai, 3D animations or drawings... yes. Yes I am personally okay with that. I'll probably find it kinda weird or creepy, but I do consider this acceptable since no real children are involved in this. I am also okay with people Roleplaying this with another adult.
In short, as long as no harm is done to a real child, I am fine with it.

On the topic of watching porn with actual children, touching actual children with sexual intent, or trying to have sex with a real child, then I put a firm stop. This deal damage to real persons.

I suppose in the end I'd say as long as it's a fantasy and not something which affects an actual child, they are welcome to get at it. If they do try and do something like that with a kid, I do hope they end up behind bars.

[Cyrus]

True, but sexual consent doesn't have to be there for the existence of an Orientation. For instance, people consider themselves homosexuals, but have no desire to engage in intercourse. The same can be considered here.

It can be considered, but should it be considered? As I stated before, it's all about informed consent. I'm not talking about sexual consent here, but rather the ability of both parties to be able to fully comprehend the situation they are involved in.

Obviously I am talking seriously underage children here, generally under the age of 10. Kids are smart, generally, but prior to puberty I sincerely do not think that they are fully capable of understanding sexual orientation. As such, I do not think that people who are emotionally, sexually or mentally attracted to those who are underage should have the validation of being classed as a "sexual orientation"

On the main topic of this I would say that it is a sexual orientation.
To me, though it may not be accurate according to the complete definition, I honestly don't know, a fetish more a thing which further arouse you rather then being a requirement. You can have a fetish for feet, but feets aren't -required- for enjoyment. Since, as far as I have understood it, Pedophiles tend to be only into kids. Might be wrong there though.

Someone I knew turned out to be a paedophile, and what was perhaps most disturbing about the whole thing (aside from the mountains of child pornography etc) was the fact that he was otherwise a normal person, in a happy (seemingly) relationship. Like all sexuality it's a messy thing, and pigeon-holing tends to muddy the issue rather than clear it.

[Lyssea]

Someone I knew turned out to be a paedophile, and what was perhaps most disturbing about the whole thing (aside from the mountains of child pornography etc) was the fact that he was otherwise a normal person.

Err... because he needs to be a monster to be into kids...? I honestly don't get at all what you were trying to say with the entire paragraph.